Dangerous biblical study

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boywonder23k
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TarkanAttila said:
Never said you had no right to look at the thread. But when you make little quips like the one you did it doesn’t impress me, and you come off as another troll.

My dear Hokomai, you should know full well by now most of the Catholics on this forum, at least, don’t literally, physically believe that. -_- A grain of salt, man. Take it with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I understood the non-literal meaning of what you said. That is what concerned me.
 
Boywonder,

you stated that William Tyndale’s heresies or what he believed was not clear. William Tyndale believed an number of things: he denounced praying to the saints, promoted Justification by faith alone, adult only baptism and the mortality of the soul. While he reportedly went to translate the Bible into English from the Hebrew and Greek, he was not always faithful to the original language such as using overseer for bishop, congregation instead of Church, and when the original language would have supported heir achy of the Church, he used words not totally faithful to the original language to support his ideas of the importance of individual beliefs. Much of the KJV 1611 version used his phrases and ideas.
The bishop of London Cuthbert Tunstall said that there were up to 2000 errors in Tyndale’s translation of the English Bible. Tyndale was very defiant of the Pope and the Papacy.
While this doesn’t justify his violent death, he wasn’t just a simple translator wanting to get the Bible into the common man’s hands for them to read.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
What boywonder is trying to argue is that because we have a heirarchical structure of deacons, priests, and bishops that it is pointless to read or study the Bible.

The assertion is as preposterous as it is humorous.
Click to expand...
By Boywonder23k’s way of thinking, university students should solely attend lectures while neglecting to look at the assigned readings and any other peer-reviewed resources whatsoever. Post-secondary professors should be arguing that required books and articles are by their very nature inspired by the scholarly spirit–the process of being peer-reviewed is of no real import as to the credibility of these materials.
 
Well I am going to have to apologize in advance as I can not possibly respond to all of these ridiculous statements/accusations and multipronged arguments. I will just have to pick one or two and give quality answers. If you feel like I passed over some particular argument feel free to contact me via personal message. Especially you grey pilgrim since you apparently want an essay with all references cited in order for something to be an answer and not an assertion. You can google all the silly arguments you like as soon as you start saying things like “Josephus is not a good historical reference” your historical ignorance is on full display. Anyways.

A couple of people said they were interested in why Jesus implicitly of not explicitly showed he did not use the septuegent.

Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.* In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles.* They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.* For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book.* This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today.* By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.* Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

This is a paraphrase of the argument from Norman geislers “agreements and differences” book on Catholicism. I find it very persuasive. Just another of TONS of reasons to reject apocryphal books.
 
Alot of people also brought up authority which inevitably always comes up in these
Kinds of conversations. It is always alleged that a Protestant can’t know what is scripture and what isn’t because we don’t have an awesome rocking infallible church to tell us so. In fact it is commonly held (and has been in this thread) that we can’t really know ANYTHING about doctrine because there are just sooooo many choices and without and infallible guide who can really know.

One has to wonder why a catholic ever stops there. I mean, there are many many religions all of which disagree and all of which claim to be true. If there are a lot of choices who can ever know the answer? This is just another silly argument for relativism. If a doctor told you that you had cancer would you say “well that’s just your opinion but you aren’t infallible so you can’t really ever know!!!” if you aren’t a post modern relativist I really don’t see why Catholics use this sort of argumentation.

Also the same question can be used on a Catholic person! You have all made fallible choices to follow the Catholic church. So you can’t just baptize all of your arguments with infallibility BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE WRONG! It is logically possible that the Church is NOT infallible. So you also can not be certain of the Canon. We all know the Canon is correct because 1. It is God breathed scripture and 2. The books on the Canon stand the test of history and scrutiny better than all of the other gnostic gospels apocrypha etc etc.
3. (Get ready for the shocker) we know those books are inspired because there was for the most part and unanimous consent among the church fathers that this was so. Yes Protestants can use history as a resource as well (remember natural revelation). The church fathers consent does not magically make our canon infallible. They simply make it likely. In other words the bible is a “fallible collection of infallible books”.

I will now prove to you that the protestabt version of biblical study is superior than the Church’s “infallibility”. Case in point- the long ending of mark. Textual critics now almost unanimously admit that verses 9-20 in chapter 16 of Mark were not in the original manuscripts and were added later by a different author. Which for a protestabt is GREAT news because we can look in our footnotes and see that ending is not inspired as it was a later addition. Not so for the catholic church. Bound and chained by its “infallibility” Catholic scholars have to pretend that the longer ending was not a later addition. Why? Because the council of Trent condemned anyone who didn’t with anethema. This of course was before they knew that the ended was a forged addition. Again as a Protestant I can look at the evidence and make the best conclusion. And again Catholics are forced to take a bad conclusion and make the evidence fit somehow.
 
Boywonder23k said:
Why read the bible at all if all that can happen is you take the risk of twisting them to your own destruction?.
Click to expand...
Reading the bile is a celebration of Gods word!!! Lol that’s why I read it! And it’s realy neat!
To address your question, I must address the problem with your question sir. I assume you are asking for catholic opinion on this matter as insinuated by asking on Catholic Answers. Your question implys that Catholics think that all that can happen from reading the bible is misinterpretation.(absolutely not true). Please, If you truly want good, non-prejudice answers, ask non-prejudice question sir. Thank you. :coffeeread:
 
Boywonder23k said:
Alot of people also brought up authority which inevitably always comes up in these
Kinds of conversations. It is always alleged that a Protestant can’t know what is scripture and what isn’t because we don’t have an awesome rocking infallible church to tell us so. In fact it is commonly held (and has been in this thread) that we can’t really know ANYTHING about doctrine because there are just sooooo many choices and without and infallible guide who can really know.

One has to wonder why a catholic ever stops there. I mean, there are many many religions all of which disagree and all of which claim to be true. If there are a lot of choices who can ever know the answer? This is just another silly argument for relativism. If a doctor told you that you had cancer would you say “well that’s just your opinion but you aren’t infallible so you can’t really ever know!!!” if you aren’t a post modern relativist I really don’t see why Catholics use this sort of argumentation.

Also the same question can be used on a Catholic person! You have all made fallible choices to follow the Catholic church. So you can’t just baptize all of your arguments with infallibility BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE WRONG! It is logically possible that the Church is NOT infallible. So you also can not be certain of the Canon. We all know the Canon is correct because 1. It is God breathed scripture and 2. The books on the Canon stand the test of history and scrutiny better than all of the other gnostic gospels apocrypha etc etc.
3. (Get ready for the shocker) we know those books are inspired because there was for the most part and unanimous consent among the church fathers that this was so. Yes Protestants can use history as a resource as well (remember natural revelation). The church fathers consent does not magically make our canon infallible. They simply make it likely. In other words the bible is a “fallible collection of infallible books”.

I will now prove to you that the protestabt version of biblical study is superior than the Church’s “infallibility”. Case in point- the long ending of mark. Textual critics now almost unanimously admit that verses 9-20 in chapter 16 of Mark were not in the original manuscripts and were added later by a different author. Which for a protestabt is GREAT news because we can look in our footnotes and see that ending is not inspired as it was a later addition. Not so for the catholic church. Bound and chained by its “infallibility” Catholic scholars have to pretend that the longer ending was not a later addition. Why? Because the council of Trent condemned anyone who didn’t with anethema. This of course was before they knew that the ended was a forged addition. Again as a Protestant I can look at the evidence and make the best conclusion. And again Catholics are forced to take a bad conclusion and make the evidence fit somehow.
Click to expand...
Don’t put God in a box. Gods church can be infallible.
Authority works and God knows it. He’s never left his sheep without shepherds.
Perspective of scripture. Ancients have it, because they lived it. It can’t be invented in the 1500’s.

A word for you to meditate on, one that might be helpful in seeing why humans need rock solid authority and tradition when it comes to trying to figure out Gods will from a roughly translated book from thousands of years ago in a era that’s nothing like those times and a place that’s nothing like the place the stories take place in. “Prejudice” It’s realy hard to think how anyone could ever fully understand what the almighty will of God is by simply reading the bible today. If God intended us to attain salvation based soley on the bible, he would have maybe had the Holy spirit guide each and everyone of us in accurate interpritation. We know this isn’t true because we see it in the world around us, Presbyterian vs Baptists, Anglican vs Methodist, Lutheran vs Pentecostal.
------ preconcieved notion ------
 
Please. If you just want to rant about how stupid Catholicism is, go back to CARM where you came from. :rolleyes:

When Paul refers to the Church as being the “pillar and ground of truth”, what is He referring to?

If Protestantism is what the Church Fathers practised, why was each and every one of them loyal to their bishops? Why were some of them bishops? Why weren’t they Presbylutherodist pastors?

Why do you agree with the Church Fathers regarding the New Testament canon, but not on contraception, the Real Presence, euthanasia, the episcopal hierarchy of the Church, and a whole host of other things?

Ah. About the Real Presence. It’s perhaps the most explicit of Jesus’s teachings in the New Testament. We have it. Why don’t the vast majority of Protestants? There are no -NO- good arguments against it.

“The spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail”, for example. Ah… when Jesus says “the flesh”, does He mean “MY flesh” as in “or my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55), or “THE flesh” as in “the spirit is willing, but THE flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41)? Or as in “the works of the flesh” as St. Paul says?

And of course, Jesus could have explained Himself if He’d intended to be metaphorical and the disciples weren’t getting it. But did He? No. Yet they were having trouble accepting His teaching. They didn’t have trouble with “I am the gate”, or “I am the good shepherd”. Why “I am the bread of life… and to live you must eat me”?

The Greek word John uses the words “phago” and “trogo” to describe eating Jesus. Phago was the common word for eat, and could be taken symbolically. Trogo, however, meant quite literally to munch, to chew, or to gnaw.

I can present you with more proofs in favour of the Real Presence, such as how well the Catholic AND Orthodox understanding of it mirrors the Passover of the Jews. Oh, and the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches, while we do have some slight differences, are so much alike in so many ways. Why should we be if Catholicism is an invention, yet Protestantism’s 30,000 denominations all make up the true “body” of Christ?
 
Boywonder23k said:
Alot of people also brought up authority which inevitably always comes up in these
Kinds of conversations. It is always alleged that a Protestant can’t know what is scripture and what isn’t because we don’t have an awesome rocking infallible church to tell us so. In fact it is commonly held (and has been in this thread) that we can’t really know ANYTHING about doctrine because there are just sooooo many choices and without and infallible guide who can really know.

One has to wonder why a catholic ever stops there. I mean, there are many many religions all of which disagree and all of which claim to be true. If there are a lot of choices who can ever know the answer? This is just another silly argument for relativism. If a doctor told you that you had cancer would you say “well that’s just your opinion but you aren’t infallible so you can’t really ever know!!!” if you aren’t a post modern relativist I really don’t see why Catholics use this sort of argumentation.
Click to expand...
You dodged the question there and did not adress why you should read the Bible since you do not have an infallible guide nor can be guranteed that you will not misinterpret it and lead to your own destruction as the New Testament states. I’ll kindly ask that you’ll have the decency to answer the question, and I’ll also ask that you have the respect a christian should have for others and stop with the snide remarks. So, good luck, I await your reply, and God bless.
 
Go back and read this post and count how many pot shots have been taken at me… How many times I’ve apologized for “offending” people and how many more shots have been thrown at Protestants. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out… And again… I’m sorry. I don’t know any Catholics (seriously) So I am not very familiar with what’s offense and what isn’t. I am not intending to disrespect Catholics as a whole of course.

I didn’t actually receive any sort of substantitive reply to my posts on authority or Jesus referencing the Jewish canon. Oh well.

I believe in the real presence at communion. So…

Someone said something about perspective can not be invented hundreds or thousands of years later… Could you be so kind as to trace for me the bodily assumption of Mary to the first 400 years of Church History? Or maybe Papal infallibility? Its just amazing to me that Catholics engage in argumentation that is so easily fired back at them.

Heuchler sorry I didn’t mean to skip your question but lost track of all the people posting. Protestants HAVE to study the bible so that we can know God. We don’t have any other source to go to besides subjective natural revelation. Therefore it makes complete since for a Protestant of any denomination to Study the bible because it is our only special revelation. Of course we do take the risk of twisting scripture but that is the risk that we MUST take because there is no other recourse. We must study. We must work and do the best we can. However for Catholics you truly believe the Church is Infallible. The Church determines and defines what “Tradition” is (since no one else can really pin it down). The Church decides what scripture means. The Church decides absolutely everything. So then why read the Bible and run the risk of falling on the wrong side of history and disagreeing with the Church? There is no reward here. It would be better to simply stick with the catechism in my humble opinion. That’s what I was initially trying to understand before we all got caught up in this quasi debate or whatever lol
 
bmullins said:
Show me where the church had an official teaching that people could not read the bible? I’ve yet to find anyone who can show that. For centuries having a bible was unlikely so there was no need to encourage reading it, the odds of owning one was very slim before the printing press. In fact, one the early church father’s said, Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. The church encourages reading of the scripture because it is sacred, and it helps us grow closer to God.

Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. - - St. Jerome quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 133.

Here is a good article for you to read: Did the Catholic church forbid reading the bible?
Click to expand...
Huh are you serious? What planet do you come from? It is common knowledge and documented history that the Catholic clergy had people burned at the stake for possesion of a bible and/or for trying to translate the bible into a language the layperson could understand because they thought people were too ignorant to understand the bible.
 
robwar said:
the bible is a Catholic book. The Canon of scripture was finalized by the Catholic church.
Remember for much of church history, most people could not read at all and the Bible was hand written making it not readily available to the average person to have in their possession. The Catholic church has never forbidden the reading of the Bible and this thinking is a Protestant myth.
Click to expand...
hahaha that’s rich. The bible has been around a heck of a lot longer than Catholics so how do you come to that conclusion.
 
Heuchler said:
Well this will be fun. The fact was only the rich could afford a Bible or even read a Bible. It wasn’t practical to read from the Bible back then because no one could read and no one could afford to pay somebody to handcopy a 1000+ page Bible. We live in the age of the printing press and literacy in our first world society, so the Bible is beneficial to us and we should go out of our way to read it.

Oh and almost forgot, just because the Bible can be misinterpreted doesn’t mean we should just give up on reading the text. I shouldn’t give up on the movie inception just because some people believe it’s all a dream and I don’t. Similarly, a baptist does not give up on the Bible because a mormon comes to a different conclusion, so why should the Catholic give up on it. I’d rather try to do something the right way than not try at all.
Click to expand...
Nope that’s totally inaccurate and doesn’t answer the question at all.
 
AlanFromWichita said:
The reason there are problems is people put too much stock in understanding the literal meaning of the Bible, which means they will argue about it forever.

The REAL treasure of the Bible is experienced best by simply listening to it and not trying to figure it out. You become much more intimate because by not defending against what doesn’t make sense, you’re allowing it into your mind and hear to do its work. My favorite way is in a comfy position.

Alan
Click to expand...
Hmmm I like that. But by saying that everyone that reads and believes in the bible would be saved.
 
Boywonder23k said:
Why do Catholics read the bible? If an unlearned person can twist scripture to ones own destruction and private interpretation leads to disaster wouldn’t one be better off simply going to mass and remaining ignorant. For many centuries the Church would not allow lay people to read the bible at all and if this is what they believe they did so consistently and wisely. Why now are Catholics allowed to study Gods word? Would the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Ignatious be for or against everyone having a bible? I do not understand the logic behind the change.
Click to expand...
Oh, but of course Catholics can read the Bible! There are Catholic concordances, Church websites, and all manner of study aids to help us. When there is a question, we can look to our Priest or our Catholic study aids to help us. And I’m very familiar with the Bible myself, having been immersed in it as a protestant for many years, although it was interpreted differently, and as you say, personally. That is why I am so grateful for the Church’s guidance:highprayer: on scripture, because I am no longer simply making up my own interpretation. I would not worry at all!
Peace
Kathryn Ann
 
robwar said:
until the gutenburg press, the Bible was copied by hand and there was high illiteracy rates and having a Bible for the common man was pretty much non existence.
Click to expand...
Good point but that doesn’t answer the question.

The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top